The Quote Mine Project

Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote
Mines

Darwin Quotes

s noted in the
Introduction, our intent was to continue to add to our
collection of quote mines. This is the first such addition and no fitter
subject could be chosen than to address some more quote mines of Charles
Darwin.

However, since these quotes are not from a single source, as was the case in
the original Quote Mine Project, there are some differences in how they are
organized. Before each quote there appears in brackets a brief description
of the Editor's impression of the proposition that the quotes are cited for
by creationists. That is followed by at least one link to a creationist site
using the quote mine. Naturally, these descriptions cannot be exhaustive and
are only as accurate as any impression. By all means, you are encouraged to
check for yourself as to creationist usage of the quotes. The easiest way to
do so is to go to the
Google Advanced Search page and, in the "Find results" box designated
"with the exact phrase," enter a short, but distinctive, phrase from the
quote mine and click on the "Search" button. Of course, if you are here
researching a particular use of a quote, you will already have an idea of
how it is being used.

The numbering of the quotes is different as well. While the original set of
quote mines was numbered simply 1 - 86, these are numbered 2.1, 2.2, . . .
etc.

Finally, at the
bottom of the page, there are links to responses in the
original Quote Mine Project concerning Darwin.

It should be noted at the outset that the above citation
is incorrect. The quote does not appear on page 2 of
Professor Gillespie's book (Gillespie, Neal C. 1979.
Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.) but, rather, on page
63, in a paragraph carrying over from page 62.

Neal C. Gillespie is Professor Emeritus of History at
Georgia State University in the United States and is a
recognized expert on the era in science that includes
Darwin's work. The citation he gives as the source of the
quotation is: "Some Unpublished Letters of Charles Darwin,"
Royal Society of London Notes and Records, 14
(1959) but he does not give the date. Further checking
located it as coming from a letter by
Darwin to Gray on
June 18, 1857. The original letter can be found in:
Burkhardt, Frederick and Smith, Sydney, eds., 1989.
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6:412.

Obviously, this quotation and citation have been passed
around by creationists uncritically and without checking
the source. Here are some of the anti-evolution websites
that have the same mistaken citation:

As the use of this secondary source for a quote by
Darwin is telling of creationist tactics, let us first turn
to Gillespie's book. Some context as to the subject matter
is needed to understand what the creationists are doing. In
large part the book deals with the change that was underway
in the methodology of science at the time Darwin published
Origin of Species. The method of "induction,"
championed by Francis Bacon, had been the "standard" for
scientific reasoning up until that time, although perhaps
paid lip service more than strictly followed. Ideally, in
induction, facts are gathered until "lower" axioms or
propositions can be derived, from which more general axioms
can be arrived at by induction. As these more fundamental
laws of nature are discovered, they can then, in turn, be
used to deduce other lower axioms, which can then be tested
by experimentation. (See Klein, Juergen,
"Francis Bacon", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.).)

By the time Darwin published Origin of
Species, philosophers of science such as John
Herschel, William Whewell, and John Stuart Mill had begun
to recognize that science was not limited to strict
induction. Darwin (according to Gillespie) operated with a
methodology that came to be known as "actualism," whereby
the existence of uniform and lawful causes of phenomena in
nature are assumed. This assumption, in turn, allowed the
use of analogies from those causes known to exist (vera causa) to fill in any gaps in our
knowledge, as well as to serve as a basis for future
research. Thus, "theorizing" was not strictly limited to
being done only after fact gathering but could proceed
concurrent with and as a guide for ongoing research.

It is in this context that Gillespie refers to the
quote, as follows (p. 62-63):

Darwin's application of these principles to particular
scientific problems seems to have taken shape in the early
period of his species work and to have changed little in
later years. Surrounded by "inductionists," he was not
always confident of the propriety of his practice. Thomas
Kuhn has remarked that "all crises begin with the blurring
of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for
normal research." In the present case, those who drifted
away from special creation also showed a tendency to
abandon "induction" as normal scientific method. Darwin
embodied the innovative use of "hypothesis" at its best,
but he never fully accepted its philosophical implications,
nor did he completely overcome the inhibitions of one who
knew that he was innovating and necessarily violating the
supposed Baconian methodological canons of his time: "I am quite conscious," he wrote to Asa
Gray on the eve of the publication of the Origin, "that my
speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true
science."When [it was reported that John Stuart Mill
had characterized the Origin of Species] as
being "in the most exact accordance with the strict
principles of logic (and that) the method of investigation
(was) the only one proper to such a subject," Darwin was
relieved. ... [H]e suffered much at the hands of
mathematicians, who usually, like so many of his critics,
approached the Origin as if it were a proof of
evolution, which of course it was not. Its supporters, on
the other hand, commonly viewed it correctly as a
hypothesis, based on plausibly ordered evidence and
heuristic in purpose.

For Darwin, then, explanatory theory was equally as
important in scientific inquiry as fact-gathering, and the
test of the truth of a theory was its ability to group
facts under a single generalization. "I believe in the
truth of the theory [of natural selection], because it
collects under one point of view, and gives a rational
explanation of, many apparently independent classes of
facts," he wrote in 1868. It seemed incredible, he told
Hugh Falconer, that "a false theory would explain, as it
seems to me it does explain, so many classes of facts." ...
Again, following the principles of positive science, the
explanation had to be within the bounds of natural
causation and had to employ causes and processes known or
believed on good evidence to occur. Any hypothesis that met
these two criteria could be held provisionally as work went
on, and then modified if necessary. ... Natural selection,
he thought, met both criteria; special creation met
neither. It merely verbally accounted for species; it
"explained" nothing.

With this context, including the additional quotations
from Darwin, it is clear that Darwin had some qualms about
his use of this new methodology in place of the traditional
idea of "true science," not least of which was the
reception it would receive from the rest of the scientific
community. But it is also clear that he had great
confidence in the results he had achieved. Needless to say,
the methodology Darwin used is the basis of much of modern
science.

More importantly for the issue of quote mining, it is
impossible to believe that anyone can actually read the
above, in context and with even a pretense of objectivity,
and honestly come away with the impression that
Gillespie was using the quote to establish some sort of
admission by Darwin that he felt his method was not
sound.

So, at this point, the creationists using this quote
have produced a single sentence by Darwin, taken from a
secondary source, that many, if not most, have not bothered
to check even that far. Any of them that did go on to read
the secondary source must either have been willfully blind
to what was being said or dishonest in their use of this
snippet.

Now back to the original letter, remembering that
creationists most often cite Darwin's words to
"demonstrate" that even he doubted the scientific
foundation for the theory of evolution. Could it be that
the quote itself supports the creationists, even if
Gillespie's use of it does not? One major problem for that
position is that Darwin was not speaking of evolution when
he wrote those words to Gray. In fact, Darwin did not
reveal the nature of his theory to Gray until July 1857,
after the quoted
letter of June 18, 1857. Here is
the quote in context, which comes from the opening of his
letter and refers to two previous letters from Gray:

My dear Dr. Gray

I must thank you for your two very valuable letters. It
is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not
bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me,
for I am quite conscious that my
speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true
science.[The rest of the letter goes on to discuss
what Darwin and Gray have been calling "disjoined species"
of trees.]

As Darwin explains his interest in the subject:

I inferred that genera & Families with very few
species (i.e. from Extinction) would be apt (not
necessarily always) to have narrow ranges & disjoined
ranges. You will not perceive, perhaps, what I am driving
at & it is not worth enlarging on, but I look at
Extinction as common cause of small genera & disjoined
ranges & therefore they ought, if they behaved properly
& as nature does not lie to go together!

I accept [extinction] as best explaining disjoined
species. I see that the same cause must have reduced many
species of great range to small, and that it may have
reduced large genera to so small, and of families. But why
is it not just as likely that there were as many small
genera (nearly) at first as now, and as great a
disproportion in the number of their species? . . . Is it
philosophical, is it quite allowable, to assume (without
evidence from fossil plants) that the family or any of the
genera was once larger and wide spread? and occupied a
continuous area?

This is the issue they have been discussing all
along (extinction as a cause of the reduction the range of
various species and causing the remnants to be located in
widely separated locales), not evolution. It is only on
July 20, 1857 that Darwin lets the cat out of the bag to
Gray (The Correspondence of Charles Darwin,
supra, at 6:431):

What you say about extinction, in regard to small genera
& local disjunction, being hypothetical seems very
just. Something direct, however, could be advanced on this
head from fossil shells; but hypothetical such notions must
remain. It is not a little egotistical, but I [should] like
to tell you, (& I do not think I have) how I view my
work. Nineteen years (!) ago it occurred to me that whilst
otherwise employed on Nat. Hist, I might perhaps do good if
I noted any sort of facts bearing on the question of the
origin of species; & this I have since been doing.
Either species have been independently created, or they
have descended from other species, like varieties from one
species. I think it can be shown to be probable that man
gets his most distinct varieties by preserving such as
arise best worth keeping & destroying the others, --
but I [should] fill a quire if I were to go on. To be brief
I assume that species arise like our domestic varieties
with much extinction; & then test this hypothesis by
comparison with as many general & pretty well
established propositions as I can find made out, -- in
geograph. distribution, geological history -- affinities
&c &c &c,. And it seems to me, that supposing
that such hypothesis were to explain general propositions,
we ought, in accordance with common way of following all
sciences, to admit it, till some better hypothesis be found
out. For to my mind to say that species were created so
& so is no scientific explanation only a reverent way
of saying it is so & so. But it is nonsensical trying
to show how I try to proceed in compass of a note. But as
an honest man I must tell you that I have come to the
heteredox conclusion that there are no such things as
independently created species -- that species are only
strongly defined varieties. I know that this will make you
despise me. -- I do not much underrate the many huge
difficulties on this view, but yet it seems to me to
explain too much, otherwise inexplicable, to be false.
...

I must say one word more in justification (for I feel
sure that your tendency will be to despise me & my
crotchets) that all my notion about how species change are
derived from long-continued study of the works of (&
converse with) agriculturists & horticulturists; &
I believe I see my way pretty clearly on the means used by
nature to change her species & adapt them to the
wondrous & exquisitely beautiful contingencies to which
every living being is exposed.

Darwin would then go on to explain his theory in depth
to Gray in a
letter on September 5th, 1857, which would
later become part of Darwin's part of the joint
presentation, with Wallace, of the theory of Natural
Selection to the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858 (see the
second volume of Janet Browne's biography of Darwin,
The Power of Place, 2002, New York: Alfred A.
Knoft, p. 37-41).

Gillespie, whose book is otherwise quite good, certainly
put the context of the quote clumsily, especially in saying
it came "on the eve of the publication of the
Origin", when it was nearly two a half years
before the publication date, November 24, 1859, and before
Darwin ever wrote about his theory to Gray. Gillespie
definitely appeared to make a connection between the
Origin and the quote. But, once you know the
date of the letter and the background of Darwin's
relationship with Gray, it is obvious that the letter is
not referring directly to Darwin's theory, much less the
Origin, though it was speaking to the general scientific
methodology Darwin was using. That Gillespie was a bit
sloppy, however, is no excuse for creationists to seize
upon it without checking and blow it out of proportion.

Sadly, if the creationists only bothered to learn rather
than merely quote mine, they might have stumbled on the
much more interesting issue of the methodology used by
Darwin and the questions it raised in the philosophy of
science. In the end, however, it would not have been of any
more avail to their case. Darwin's method was clearly valid
and is still widely used to this day in all the
sciences, not just biology. But at least it would have been
a real issue, not this pale cardboard imitation of one.

- John (catshark) Pieret

Quote #2.2

[Re: Evolution not being scientific]

"You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming
book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very
likely be of no other service than collocating some facts;
though I myself think I see my way approximately on the
origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost
universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the
truth of his own dogmas." - Charles Darwin, 1858, in a
letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of
his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's
Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

I thank you for so kindly taking the trouble of writing
to me, on naturalised plants. [Darwin then discusses the
spreading of clovers and trees.]

With respect to your idea of plants travelling west, I
was much struck by a remark of yours in the penultimate
"Linnean Journal" on the spreading of plants from America
near Behring Straits. Do you not consider so many more
seeds and plants being taken from Europe to America, than
in a reverse direction, would go some way to account for
comparative fewness of naturalised American plants here?
Though I think one might wildly speculate on European weeds
having become well fitted for cultivated land, during
thousands of years of culture, whereas cultivated land
would be a new home for native American weeds, and they
would not consequently be able to beat their European
rivals when put in contest with them on cultivated land.
Here is a bit of wild theory! [1]

[Here Darwin asks Bentham for a favor in connection with
names of species involved in certain cross breeding
experiments.]

Thank you heartily for what you say about my book; but
you will be greatly disappointed; it
will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be
of no other service than collocating some facts; though I
myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of
species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it
is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own
dogmas. My only hope is that I certainly see very many
difficulties of gigantic stature.

[Here Darwin asks Bentham if he can remember cases of
one introduced species beating out another and whether he
supposed the seedlings of the wild corn-poppy indigenous in
Sicily would win against the acclimatized English poppy.]
If this could be shown to be so in this and other cases, I
think we could understand why many not-trained American
plants would not succeed in our agrarian habitats.

[1] See Asa Gray, "Scientific Papers," 1889, Volume II.,
page 235, on "The Pertinacity and Predominance of Weeds,"
where the view here given is adopted. In a letter to Asa
Gray (November 6th, 1862), published in the "Life and
Letters," II., page 390, Darwin wrote: "Does it not hurt
your Yankee pride that we thrash you so confoundedly? I am
sure Mrs. Gray will stick up for your own weeds. Ask her
whether they are not more honest downright good sort of
weeds.")

- More Letters of Charles Darwin, p.
341-2

Darwin clearly anticipates that he will be taken to task
by a good many of his fellow naturalists for proposing a
speculative theory, as it was not the fashion at the time
for British naturalists to propose theories (they left that
to the French and German speaking Europeans). He seeks here
and elsewhere to defuse some of this. It didn't work - from
the outset he was attacked for speculation.

- John Wilkins

In understanding this (and many other of Darwin's
letters) it should also be kept in mind that he was writing
privately, not giving a formal defense of his work. That
Darwin could be less-than-serious in his correspondence is
shown by the letter referenced in the footnote above.
Darwin was often self-deprecating in his humor and
generally modest about himself and his theory, which was
not the worst aspect of Victorian manners. Less charitably,
perhaps, but no less accurately, Adrian Desmond and James
Moore, in their biography, Darwin: The Life of a
Tormented Evolutionist (1991. W.W. Norton & Co.,
p. 456), call them his "half-begging, self-mocking
letters."

- John (catshark) Pieret

Quote #2.3

[Re: Do the facts prove evolution?]

"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is
discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced,
often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite
to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be
obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and
arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here
impossible." - Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin
of Species, p. 2. Also quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal',
The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be
imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities
for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader
reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors
have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in
trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only
the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few
facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases
will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of
the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the
facts; with references on which my conclusions have been
grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single
point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be
adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly
opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result
can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the
facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and
this cannot possibly be here done. - First edition,
quoted from p 66-7 of the Penguin edition.

By the sixth edition, the exact phrasing "is here impossible" has been
inserted.

[Editor's note: Since the quote mine dated the reference
to 1859, that necessarily implies the first edition. It is
a minor difference in the quote but further evidence of the
sloppy or, more correctly, nonexistent scholarship of
creationists. The different editions can be found on the
web here:
first edition (p. 2),
and the
sixth edition (pp. 1-2).]

Darwin originally intended to have a large and academic
book, with footnotes and exhaustive factual illustrations.
His plan was defeated when Wallace sent his outline of the
theory, so Darwin had to publish this "abstract" of the
larger essay. It was eventually published in the 1970s,
over a century later.*

The phrase quoted is an apology for the paucity of facts
used in the argument. The "both sides" are, of course,
special creation and evolution.

Quote #2.4

[Re: The fossil record is incorrectly presented as
incontrovertible evidence of the validity of evolutionary
theory]

"The case at present (problems presented by the fossil
record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as
a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The
Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p.
310.

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous
deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior
to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.
Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their
head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the
organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first
dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and
E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not
forget that only a small portion of the world is known with
accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and
lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species,
beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still
lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has
found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and
containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of
phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of
the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these
periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian
formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three
great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in
Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W.
Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far
surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of
the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus
carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of
the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be
considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon
belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of
animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed
in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked,
certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must
have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote
in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before
the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with
those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true.
Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason
for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem
probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn
away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly
obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the
case we should have found only small remnants of the
formations next succeeding them in age, and these would
always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition.
But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian
deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North
America, do not support the view, that the older a
formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme
denudation and metamorphism.

The case at present must remain
inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the views here entertained.To show that it may
hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the
following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic
remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound
depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the
United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in
thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may
infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of
land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the
neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and
North America. The same view has since been maintained by
Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state
of things in the intervals between the several successive
formations; whether Europe and the United States during
these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine
surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or
as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin
of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872,
Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.

Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the
Cambrian, and seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing
away of the earlier strata. He notes here (sixth edition,
1872) that he had said in 1859 (first edition) that fossils
would be found in earlier strata, and they eventually were.
However, Darwin was probably mislead about the Eozoon
formations, as they are not currently considered a real
fossil but a metamorphic feature formed from the
segregation of minerals in marble through the influence of
great heat and pressure.

Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not
known of, has destroyed some of the relevant material but
mostly he was right. The older the sediment, the greater
the chance that it has either eroded away or been
metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed. Even
so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran
(circa 580 million years before the present) and single
cell fossils arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid
argument no longer has any purchase, and Darwin has been
vindicated.

Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin
thought there were a lot of things he could not explain
using evolution, and that he knew it was false. This is
extraordinarily bad quote mining.

- John Wilkins and John Harshman

Quote #2.5

[Re: "General difficulties with the theory of
evolution]

"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a
crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some
of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect
on them without being staggered . . ." - Charles Darwin
(ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species
(Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.), p. 205.

LONG before having arrived at this
part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred
to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I
can never reflect on them without being staggered;
but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are
only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think,
fatal to my theory.

Darwin is proceeding by his usual method of first posing a
problem and then responding to it. The omission of the rest of
the sentence could have only been deliberately intended to
give a false impression of Darwin's own assessment of his
work. The only possible "excuse" for using the quote in
this form is that it was copied mindlessly from a secondary
source without the minimal effort of checking the original.
It is either a display of an absolute lack of scholarship
or else an absolute lack of morals.

- John (catshark) Pieret

Quote #2.6

[Re: "lack" of transitional fossils]

But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms
must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in
countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin
of Species, 1859).

There is no surprise here. Darwin is proceeding by his
usual method of asking a question and then answering it.
Creationist quote miners classically omit his answer.

In the sixth edition this appears in Chapter 6,
"Difficulties on Theory", on p. 134 (in the first
edition it appears on p. 172 with a different
follow-up):

But, as by this theory innumerable
transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find
them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this
question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the
Geological Record; and I will here only state that I
believe the answer mainly lies in the record being
incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The
crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural
collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long
intervals of time.

Besides leaving out the context, this is misleading in a
subtler way when used for the proposition that there are no
transitional forms. Darwin is not talking about the
existence or nonexistence of transitionals here, but of an
"innumerable" series of finely-graded transitionals linking
together all extinct and existing forms. As he
says later in
Chapter XI of the sixth edition on page 342:

These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the
limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of
certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a
large extent explain why -- though we do find many links --
we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together
all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated
steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any
linking variety between two forms, which might be found,
would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly
restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not
pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species
and varieties can be discriminated.

In short, the use of the quote to imply there are
no transitionals misstates Darwin's argument,
intentionally or out of ignorance. Darwin was not stating
that there was an absence of transitionals but, in fact,
stated there were "many links." Instead, he was discussing
why there are not more transitionals in an easily
read pattern of gradual change. As Darwin correctly noted,
where the fossil record does not approach "perfection," it
is difficult, if not impossible, to tell by morphology
alone exactly where any particular organism would fall
within such a graduated series. Thus, such an organism
might be classified as a distinct species from either the
original or the subsequent ones. However, such organisms,
being general morphological intermediates between different
forms, as in the case of Archaeopteryx, would, along with
other evidence, support an inference of evolutionary change
over time through common descent. The fossil record may not
be easy to read, but it is not devoid of information
either.

Even if the quote stood for what the quote miners claim
it does, Darwin was writing almost 150 years ago, at a time
early in the scientific study of fossils and when few
scientists were expecting to find "transitional forms."
Much has been learned since, some of which can be seen in
various articles in the Archive, such as: Transitional Vertebrate
Fossils FAQ, Archaeopteryx FAQs, and
29+ Evidences for
Macroevolution, among others.

J. (catshark) Pieret

Quote #2.7

[Re: Evolution is a faith not based on evidence]

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one
species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single
species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed
changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the
theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed
and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly
more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than
the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a
letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed.
1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,
Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

As an aside, the main part of the letter is discussing,
interestingly enough, the aspect of the fossil record that
eventually lead to proposal of the theory of Punctuated
Equilibria:

The objection . . . of certain forms remaining unaltered
through long time and space, is no doubt formidable in
appearance, and to a certain extent in reality according to
my judgment. But does not the difficulty rest much on our
silently assuming that we know more than we do? ... [I]n
judging the theory of Natural Selection, which implies that
a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to
its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should
change much slower and much less, and some few should have
changed not at all under conditions which to us (who really
know nothing what are the important conditions) seem very
different.

In essence, Darwin is saying that the stasis in the
morphology of species found in the fossil record
is partly due to the imperfection of the record itself
and, possibly, partly due to differential rates of
change in species. While Darwin's default position was for
gradualistic change in species, such concepts are relative.
He saw that some change in species could take much longer
than others and, of course, the Punctuated Equilibria
theorists only claim that change tends to come "rapidly" in
geologic terms but over very long times in human terms.

Now to the actual quote:

P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at
present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1)
On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence;
and the certain geological fact that species do somehow
change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication
by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view
connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of
facts. When we descend to details, we
can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot
prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove
that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the
groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some
species have changed and others have not. The latter case
seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely
and in detail than the former case of supposed change.
Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the
new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another
mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another
plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does
not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a
belief grounded on other arguments.

Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be
seen to operate and serves as a single coherent explanation
for many diverse phenomena. Even if all the details of the
individual phenomena are not known, the "consilience", in
William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently
explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for
its status as a "vera causa". [See Snyder, Laura J.,
"William Whewell", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.).] Add to that the fact that the fossil record
generally shows change in life over time and the clear
analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial
support for his proposed mechanism.

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that,
based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at
the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to
say that a particular species was the descendant
of a particular earlier species. By the same
token, then, it would be impossible to show from the
fossils that any particular species had changed
into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence,
at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other
genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of
evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one
and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it
is not necessarily possible to determine just what
about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity
of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In
fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories"
that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years
later. Once again, this is an excellent example of just how
deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood his
theory.

This quote mine is similar to Quote 82 but
longer and without additional text (not from Darwin)
that was included in Quote 82.

- John (catshark) Pieret

Quote #2.8

[Re: Evolution is impossible]

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting
the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest
possible degree. - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed.,
p. 186.

Quote #2.9

[Re: Evolution leads to immorality]

A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence
of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and
reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only
to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or
which seem to him the best ones.
- Charles Darwin, The Morality of Evolution, Autobiography,
Norton, p. 94, 1958

The relevance of a belief system is found in its influence on behavior.
Charles Darwin got it right when he said,
"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a
personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward,
can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those
impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best
ones" (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1887, as
republished by The Norton Library, p. 94). Similarly, Solomon wrote long ago,
"For as he thinks in his heart, so is he" (Prov.
23:7). Clearly what we
believe affects our behavior. If one believes that he is a product of chance
and random processes, why should one place any value on life? He is simply
guided by the strongest impulses and his choices are based on such (rape,
euthanasia, abortion, etc.). Adolf Hitler could be justified by evolution!...

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.
The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I
for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

A man who has no assured and ever present belief
in the existence of
a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward,
can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow
those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to
him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly.
A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares
his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in
accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest
satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the
social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive
the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with
whom he lives ; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest
pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him
to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which
when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may
occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others,
whose approbation he will then not receive ; but he will still have
the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost
guide or conscience.--As for myself I believe that I have acted
rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel
no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and
often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow
creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill-health and my mental
constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from
one subject or occupation to another. I can imagine with high
satisfaction giving up my whole time to philanthropy, but not a
portion of it; though this would have been a far better Line of
conduct.

Quote #2.10

[Darwin and evolutionary theory is racist]

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized
races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races
throughout the world. - Darwin, Descent, vol. I, 201.

Quote #2.11

[Darwin and evolutionary theory is racist]

The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in
the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what
an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher
civilized races throughout the world. - Charles Darwin,
Life and Letters, p. 318.